User talk:MrOllie

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

About Woodturning

Are you looking this page? http://www.craobhcuigdeag.org/ İs Empty Not page inside, why so delete my link? Not adv. not nofollow, why doing that? I just write blog page and writing English. Why you making that? I'm Not spam. I Do real. Thanks, Best Regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muratbekar (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does not link to marketing materials such as vendor blogs. Adding such links is linkspamming. - MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Tranio.com

Hello,
Thank you for your concern about Wikipedia integrity.
We've noticed that you have placed Tranio.com on Wikipedia's blacklist (apparently by mistake). Tranio.com is a high-profileв international platform with an editorial expert team. Tranio.com's trusted and quoted by huge media outlets all over the world. Tranio.com's info from its expert surveys naturally contributes to the articles on Wikipedia on real estate and investment topics. Tranio.com doesn't violate any rules, rightfully mentioning only in reference block. Other users can link to our studies as well as Tranio.com is a well-known source of knowledge.

We ask you to return tranio.com from the blacklist where you placed it.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekabug (talk • contribs)

It wasn't a mistake, it was spammed by a dozen sockpuppet accounts. You probably just noticed this because another sockpuppet, User:ErganolQute, just tried to add another link today and hit the blacklisting. MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes reverted to depression page

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_(mood)

You said "individual clinic site as medical source"

This is incorrect. I am citing PHQ9 and not the clinic. I am also citing international research and not research done by a puny clinic.

The surrounding context of the citation is taking about this tool (PHQ9). PHQ9 is a clinically validated gold standard of measuring depression.

At the destination URL the visitor can see:

1. The 9 questions that are in PHQ9

2. Take the scale to see if they have depression.

I have been involved (for good or bad) with this for 10 years now and I might have more knowledge on this. Maybe I should have worded the citation better ?

Knownnotknown (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

–

I have changed the citation to make it clear that the citation is to a live version of PHQ9 tool and not an individual clinic site.

Knownnotknown (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, You have been adding links to random small businesses. This is not how we source Wikipedia articles, see WP:RS. Are you affiliated with any of these businesses? Are you attempting to perform SEO? If so, you should know that links on Wikipedia do not affect search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

-

I am trying to be helpful and become a wikipedia contributor. I am not affiliated with these businesses. I read up on no-follow links when you mentioned it previously. I know that these links do not have marketing value.

I am not adding link to small business in case of the depression tool. That is a real live PHQ9 a clinically validated tool. I truly believe that this citation will help people.

Knownnotknown (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Also about my edit to the debtors prison article -- I wanted to improve wikipedia by removing link rot.

I do not know why I am not being welcomed!!

Knownnotknown (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

--

You keep saying "inappropriate link to random clinic with a journal cite" as the comment when you are reverting my edit.

This is underhanded. I have already explained that the link is to the clinically validated tool that seems to be only available on that website. I am linking to the tool, I am not linking to the clinic.

Knownnotknown (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. We do not use blogs anywhere on Wikipedia, and in the medical space sourcing requirements are even more stringent. MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a blog. Have you tried using the tool. This will literally save lives. Trust me I have been there.

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

--

Also i find it interesting that all your contribution to wikipedia is reverting edits. We really need a 3rd opinion on this.

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, You were just edit warring to put a self published lawyer blog in on another article. Re the medical source (also a primary source, which we do not use for such things): Go to WT:MED and ask which of the two citations meets policy. - MrOllie (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There you go once again you choose to ignore what I wrote just 2 paragraph above about the Debtors prison article.

1. I was trying to fix link rot

2. I am not a lawyer and it is not a self published lawyer blog.

3. Now I know that Link rots cannot be fixed with blog links

Trying to confuse others by referring my mistake on debtors prison article while we are debating depression PHQ9 is not fair.

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

In the above message you say "Re the medical source (also a primary source)"

Are you asserting that PHQ9 is a primary source ??

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, Your ignorance of and apparent refusal to read and abide by Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are the common thread. Yes, it is a primary source. Again, please read WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS), which I have linked for you several times, for what that means. MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Once again you are throwing the rule book at me. How convenient that this is the 3rd reason you have come up with to undo my edit.

Give me a specific section or line from the rule book.

Knownnotknown (talk)

If you want to contribute on Wikipedia, especially on medical topics, you must read the whole thing. - MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have read the whole thing.

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, If that were true, you would not be replacing a peer reviewed medical paper with a lower quality source. Again, if you don't believe me for some reason, ask on WT:MED. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you read my comment in the undo log?

"You have replaced a useful citation with a research paper where the 9 questions are listed multiple pages down. This research paper belongs to PHQ9 specific page and not in this context where the tool is being discussed."

This is a discussion of the tool and not about the research on PHQ9. Did you know that PHQ9 has a standalone page which talks about the research ?

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, I read that, yes. Since it is plainly in conflict with WP:MEDRS, that is why I assumed you are unfamiliar with (or refusing to abide by) Wikipedia's sourcing standards. We're talking in circles here. Please take it up on WT:MED, where you will hopefully find someone you are willing to listen to. MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

First you said "this is a primary source" and 5 minutes later you say "it is a lower quality source" and earlier you have said "this is a link to a clinic"

which of these rejections reasons do you want to stand by ?

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, A primary source is a lower quality source, as is a link to a clinic. The three statements all mean the same thing. I'm done here, since it seems to me that all you really want to do here is try to twist my words. Take it up on WT:MED. MrOllie (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Before we say sayanora to each other. I want to make sure I address your twist of what I have been saying for hours now:

Stop asserting that this a link to a clinic. This is a link to a live incarnation of the tool about which that specific line is taking about.

Knownnotknown (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, I will not top asserting something which is correct. At any rate, I have opened a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Referencing_the_use_of_the_PHQ9_for_depression, since you have not do so. Direct future discussion either there or to Talk:Depression (mood) so other editors may weigh in. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Tire recycling

At Tire_recycling you removed an addition made by me stating as the reason "backlink farming". The information added was obviously relevant to the topic and the page did not have that particular piece of information. Can you please explain how exactly specifying the substantial released when tires are burnt can possibly be a link farming? You also keep removing my reference at Tire_rotation for the same reason? Is owning the reference reason for removal even though it includes relevant information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Murr (talk • contribs)

I didn't revert you at Tire recycling, that was someone else. But you can expect that you will be reverted by multiple people as long as you're spamming blog links. - MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

)

Saffysprocket (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Z1 Storage

Recently you complained about me adding Z1 Storage on Amazon S3 wiki, under the S3 API compatible suppliers section.

Reply:

Hello there, Z1 Storage is an S3 compatible data cloud provider in Africa, as the page has numerous other providers listed, it's only logical Z1 Storage's link can remain there as well? . Nofollow for URLs is perfectly fine, I'd still like to have that edit on the page. Thanks, Z1 Storage